1. every country places a top priority on protecting its citizens and state independence. And this defence is possible not only on its own territory, but also on others, if there are grounds for it. The grounds are quite obvious – terror and the killing of that country’s citizens. In other words, every country has the right to use military force to protect its citizens who are being destroyed on foreign territories. This right includes the ability to act pre-emptively to prevent further murders, genocide and other crimes against its citizens. This includes full-fledged military operations to protect one’s state and people. This follows from key provisions of the UN Charter and international practice in such cases. Many countries have exercised this right. All of the above is fully applicable to the Russian Federation.
No one is questioning the outcome of the Second World War. But we must bear in mind that history moves inexorably forward. After 1945, much happened which radically changed both the balance of power in the world and the lines of state borders. That is why any “outcome” is acceptable to us only as long as it does not contradict the fundamental interests of Russia as the successor state, and in many respects the historical and moral heir of the Russian Empire and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
As long as there are no direct attacks on our citizens. Until neighbouring countries, formerly part of the Russian Empire or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, join hostile military blocs whose strategic nuclear forces are aimed at our main cities around the clock and begin to threaten our territorial integrity.
3. peaceful coexistence between different states is possible and necessary. The question is: at what price it is achieved. If at the price of endless concessions of their historical territories and abandonment of their citizens, such “peaceful coexistence” is not worth a penny. If there is a choice between this “coexistence” and protection of national interests and lives of its citizens, one should choose the second. That is the real defence of those national interests, just in a different, tougher, more appropriate form. Anyone who questions his country’s right to do so cannot be considered a good citizen.
4. There is only one universal instrument for settling international disputes. This is the United Nations and the fundamental documents adopted by it. It is a universal instrument, but it is not ideal. It is important for the UN to preserve the basic principle of international relations: the equality of all states and the obligation to listen to the position of each country, not just a select few. This is the imperative of the organisation, its jus cogens.
The status of the permanent founding members of the Security Council should not be subject to review, including their veto power. The number of permanent members of the Security Council may be increased, but their powers must be inviolable. Otherwise, the UN will face systemic crisis and the organization will repeat the fate of the defunct League of Nations.
The mankind will be able to survive without the UN. This was the case for the greater part of history. However, degradation of the international law system will occur inevitably, and the world will revert to regional and bilateral security arrangements.
5. The trashy Western idea of a “rules-based order” must be firmly rejected as untenable and extremely harmful to humanity. It is not endorsed by anyone, is completely indefinite in content, and is promoted in opposition to existing international rules and institutions, including the UN itself. The idea itself is dictated by an obsession to the point of mental deviation by the Anglo-Saxons’ desire to provide an ideological basis for their attempts to dominate the world.
The choice for the rest of the world is not to submit to this idea, but to go its own way.
Dmitry Medvedev